Cheating- Where is the line drawn?

Dutydog

Dutydog

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Total posts
78
Chips
0
I am sure we would all agree that if the allegations against Mike Postle are proved, that what he did amounts to cheating and he will no longer be welcome in the poker community.
In 2017, England’s Supreme Court found against Phil Ivey in his attempt to recover winnings from Punto Banco against Genting. The facts were uncontested: Ivey had gained an advantage by edge sorting and by asking the croupier to rotate the relevant cards, without her realising why she was being asked to do so.
The Supreme Court’s judgment was that this amounted to cheating and was dishonest, a decision which seems to have done no harm to Ivey’s reputation.
So my question is simply, where do you think the line is drawn between what is acceptable in gaining an edge and cheating?
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,439
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
The Ivey case was interesting. A lot of people within the poker community sided with Ivey and essentially said the casinos, both in London and the US, had it coming as they had allowed themselves to be manipulated via edge sorting.

However, I was on the fence as Ivey was not playing the game baccarat/ Punto Banco as designed, plain and simple, he was exploiting the dealer and cards. That the judgements went against him both in the US and US was no surprise although I felt a fair result would have been that Ivey and the casinos met in the middle and Ivey might keep fifty percent of the winnings.

However, if you are asking about what is acceptable, there was a standard in UK law regarding what was acceptable in terms of cheating/fraud prior to this case (not actually applied in Ivey's case) which is the following - from the Financial Times...

"...the go-to test of dishonesty...the two-step test asks whether a defendant knew his actions would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person, but went ahead and committed them anyway".

That makes a lot of sense to me.
 
R

Richard Grant

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Total posts
393
Chips
0
There's the rules or the law, and then there's the spirit of the law.

People often want "fairness". But, whatever rules you have people are always going to game them.
 
Dutydog

Dutydog

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Total posts
78
Chips
0
The Ivey case was interesting. A lot of people within the poker community sided with Ivey and essentially said the casinos, both in London and the US, had it coming as they had allowed themselves to be manipulated via edge sorting.

However, I was on the fence as Ivey was not playing the game Baccarat/ Punto Banco as designed, plain and simple, he was exploiting the dealer and cards. That the judgements went against him both in the US and US was no surprise although I felt a fair result would have been that Ivey and the casinos met in the middle and Ivey might keep fifty percent of the winnings.

However, if you are asking about what is acceptable, there was a standard in UK law regarding what was acceptable in terms of cheating/fraud prior to this case (not actually applied in Ivey's case) which is the following - from the Financial Times...

"...the go-to test of dishonesty...the two-step test asks whether a defendant knew his actions would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person, but went ahead and committed them anyway".

That makes a lot of sense to me.

It was interesting that the Supreme Court rewrote the Ghosh test, which had always been the leading case on “dishonesty” in criminal cases. They sort of fudged the issue by saying they were deciding on a civil case.

Do you think Ivey would have had less sympathy if he’d got his edge against a fellow player, rather than the casino?
 
Y

YKCaiTLH1314

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Total posts
430
Chips
0
Mike and Phil are totally different class. Mike rob the pleasant while Phil rob the rich. Once a robber being caught he will be stone to death but the latter is a Robinhood whereby everyone will be praising how great he is, even though both are taking something that don't belong to them.

Mike is a gambler, he even gamble with his life and reputation(the most important aspect in society).
Phil is a Thinker, he knows what he is doing even being exposed of his doing, he already have plan A B and C to handle it.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,439
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Great question Dutydog.

I think if he had used that sort of edge against fellow players he would have gotten way less sympathy!

It was funny to come across your post as I had been thinking about the perception of Ivey and Postle since the Stones incident blew up and how reactions were so different (in part because I incline to a black and white view of things generally, cheating is cheating).

But even if Ivey conned the casino not other players, the idea should have been more frowned upon, period. I remember naively thinking the casinos and Ivey would come to an agreement/settlement where they could both walk away with some reputation intact.

Dutydog, you might have already listened to the ESPN 30 for 30 podcast "A Queen of Sorts" detailing the edge sorting episode,but for those that haven't I highly recommend it. For one thing it reveals that Kelly Sun was the expert at edge sorting, not Ivey. However, it was Ivey who pursued the case through the US and UK courts and then on to appeal in an attempt to keep or in the UK case be paid the 'winnings'
 
Last edited:
Q

Queenlimp

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Total posts
299
Chips
0
The truth of the matter is: cheating happens all the time.
In every industry.

Bernie was the chairman of the DOW, and many of our grandparents was robbed by him.

If people whose personality is vulnerable to making a living by playing gambling games and trenched in the social majority that live their life primarily for pleasure: there is no doubt these things occur in card games. That's why Vegas has legal prostitution, think it's a coincidence that the gangsters invested in casinos and more of them in that State than anywhere in the US?

There is not doubt people cheat online.
Even social media, who dictate many people's life and sell their personal information like farmer's butcher chicken.
The profitability of a scam and it's sophistication depends on the investment.
There is no doubt they have cheerleaders and mascots on the payroll, encouraging the vulnerable to give away their precious earnings voluntarily.

If a company can remain profitable, why would they police to the extreme: which would only result in publicity that would hurt their bottom line.

FYI......

This is the world we live in!
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,261
Awards
1
Chips
252
The main reason, some poker players initially sited with Ivey, was a belief, that it is the responsibility of the casino to supply untainted cards. And if they fail to do so, they kind of have it coming. However I don’t think, any poker players will say, that what Ivey did, had a very high moral standard. And two different courts have now ruled it as cheating, so if nothing else he have created a lot of financial problems for himself and hurt his reputation.

As for players cheating other players, I think, all honest poker players see this pretty much the same way. Anything against the rules is cheating, if its done deliberately to gain an advantage on other players. That include peeking at cards, marking cards, superusers online or in streams, collusion, use of illegal software online and angle shooting in live poker.

Some areas a little bit of a grey zone though, like when people softplay in tournaments, or when someone signal their intention to fold in a multiway pot, before its their turn to act. These actions can both be seen as collusion, but at the same time its difficult to make rules, that people are not allowed to play small pots, or that everyone must have a great poker face to not influence the action of other players in multiway pots.

And then of course there are the off table actions, which are probably much more of a real issue among pros. Borrowing money and not paying back, not living up to agreements like the “Durr challenge” or staking agreements, and so on and so forth.
 
Dutydog

Dutydog

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Total posts
78
Chips
0
Great question Dutydog

Dutydog, you might have already listened to the ESPN 30 for 30 podcast "A Queen of Sorts" detailing the edge sorting episode,but for those that haven't I highly recommend it. For one thing it reveals that Kelly Sun was the expert at edge sorting, not Ivey. However, it was Ivey who pursued the case through the US and UK courts and then on to appeal in an attempt to keep or in the UK case be paid the 'winnings'


Thanks for that DS3. Just listened to it. It’s fascinating.
 
Collin Moshman

Collin Moshman

Poker Expert
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Total posts
1,317
Awards
3
Chips
2
The casino supplied the dealer and cards. I personally don't think Ivey did anything wrong just because a court ruled against him. Courts have also ruled that online poker is a game of luck, after all!

Generally though I'd say there are definitely different levels of cheating. For example, someone who multi-accounts online is cheating by gaining an unfair edge against their opponents. Someone like Postle who is stealing stream data is outright theft and the worse offense between the two.

So I think it's reasonable given that there are different levels of cheating and some offenses worse than others, that people hold different opinions on where the line is drawn in terms of the person being permanently branded a cheater. And again for me Ivey definitely doesn't qualify unless there's more to the story I'm not aware of, DS3 I'll have to check out that podcast -- sounds really interesting.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,439
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Fundiver199-

good post.

Collin Moshman-

I understand yours and many in the poker world’s opinion on the Ivey edge sorting episode. I still like Ivey in spite of the incident. But, for me it was a line not to cross from an ethical point of view- I see it in simple terms, he was not playing a legitimate game of Baccarat. What he (or rather Kelly Sun) did was practiced and even elegant- but not something I can condone.

The second aspect of this which I questioned was the choice to pursue it in the courts. I felt that a fools errand.

Yes, listen to the‘Queen of Sorts’ podcast, it is an eye opener and really well produced- and now comes with two recommendations!
 
GARCIA PABLO DANIEL

GARCIA PABLO DANIEL

Visionary
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Total posts
857
Awards
1
AR
Chips
41
I was not aware of what happened, but I'm in favor of justice Whatever your fault and I have every confidence that it is legitimate and worthy !!!
 
D

dlam

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Total posts
714
Awards
1
Chips
5
Great question Dutydog.

I think if he had used that sort of edge against fellow players he would have gotten way less sympathy!

It was funny to come across your post as I had been thinking about the perception of Ivey and Postle since the Stones incident blew up and how reactions were so different (in part because I incline to a black and white view of things generally, cheating is cheating).

But even if Ivey conned the casino not other players, the idea should have been more frowned upon, period. I remember naively thinking the casinos and Ivey would come to an agreement/settlement where they could both walk away with some reputation intact.

Dutydog, you might have already listened to the ESPN 30 for 30 podcast "A Queen of Sorts" detailing the edge sorting episode,but for those that haven't I highly recommend it. For one thing it reveals that Kelly Sun was the expert at edge sorting, not Ivey. However, it was Ivey who pursued the case through the US and UK courts and then on to appeal in an attempt to keep or in the UK case be paid the 'winnings'


Interesting podcast. Producer from crazy rich asians looking into making a movie about Ivey/Sun
Seems like it really wasn’t “cheating” to me. They play within the rules that casino allowed them do
I think judge sided with the casino as the “safe ruling” I agree with Kelly that Ivey was just too greedy and got exposed otherwise they could have continued doing the edge sorting longer
 
I

Ianmacca99

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Total posts
490
Chips
1
The mike postle situation is the first incidence of its kind to come into the public eye but I wonder if this is isolated thing I'm sure this as happened before maybe not on as grand a scale and this case will surely bring about a change in technology to combat this reoccurring
 
R

rigor mortis

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 7, 2018
Total posts
234
Chips
0
Most casinos have specifoc rules for what is and is not allowed, breach any and you may be banned
 
X

xy23

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Total posts
422
Chips
0
Honestly, what Mike Postle did was far ****ing worse than what Phil Ivey did. He even went on to say he's 'one of the best players in the world'. Guy needs the sh*t kicked out of him.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,439
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Interesting podcast. Producer from crazy rich asians looking into making a movie about Ivey/Sun
Seems like it really wasn’t “cheating” to me. They play within the rules that casino allowed them do
I think judge sided with the casino as the “safe ruling” I agree with Kelly that Ivey was just too greedy and got exposed otherwise they could have continued doing the edge sorting longer

Appreciate the feedback and taking the time out to listen to ‘Queen of Sorts!’

The incident took place a while ago so I’m long since aware people fall one side of the issue or the other and understand why. Kelly Sun was studied and practiced in manner few could emulate. But, from my simple perspective, it was not Punto Banco - it was underhanded, deceptive. That to me echoes ‘being a little bit pregnant’. Being a little cheaty, is cheating. I respect the fact others disagree.

That said, the casinos were lax. The podcast points out the fraud was initially rumbled when an employee remembered how his grandfather had used the ‘magic’ of edge sorting to identify cards, which was a vintage magicians trick. That is why I expected (in real time) for the two parties to reach a settlement where both could save face.

I agree, Ivey’s greed was out of control and brought things to a head, but I sense in all likelihood things could have caught up with Kelly Sun regardless. This noted, I believe she is somewhat (all things considered)of a low key, anonymous figure and can still access casinos.

Did not know the crew behind ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ were considering making a film about the edge sorting shenanigans. Could be cool - I love what Aaron Sorkin did with Molly's Game. I'd love to see another poker movie in a similar vein, driven by a great story.
 
zinzir

zinzir

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2019
Total posts
1,225
Awards
3
Chips
0
The casino supplied the dealer and cards. I personally don't think Ivey did anything wrong just because a court ruled against him. Courts have also ruled that online poker is a game of luck, after all!

Generally though I'd say there are definitely different levels of cheating. For example, someone who multi-accounts online is cheating by gaining an unfair edge against their opponents. Someone like Postle who is stealing stream data is outright theft and the worse offense between the two.

So I think it's reasonable given that there are different levels of cheating and some offenses worse than others, that people hold different opinions on where the line is drawn in terms of the person being permanently branded a cheater. And again for me Ivey definitely doesn't qualify unless there's more to the story I'm not aware of, DS3 I'll have to check out that podcast -- sounds really interesting.


The Casinos supplied the cards Ivey asked for. In other words, the Casinos supplied Ivey with the means to cheat, but did not agree with Ivey's actual cheating. The law is blind, as it should be, and of course ruled for the Casinos.

Morally, the Casinos are to blame as of course they knew why Ivey asked specifically for those cards, but banked on beating Ivey anyway, and would have happily taken Ivey's money with no questions asked if he actually lost.

But as a back up plan they gathered all evidence needed so in case Ivey won they could prove in a Court of Law that Ivey cheated.

What the Casinos did to Ivey is beatiful in a diabolical way.
 
T

TRocker69

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Total posts
98
Chips
0
The cheating on WPN sites are out of control,well I can't actually call them cheaters when the house is behind it all so lets just call them house players. Lets run the clock all the way down every hand while they scope the cards,as while they run the clock down my antivirus just magically shuts off in the middle of the hand or java script errors. WPN is fixed poker %100. They prey on the addicted that know there's shady stuff going on but can't help themselves while brainwashing others to deposit with the constant freerolls you can never build off of. Total scam site!
 
N

neptun1914

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Total posts
1,656
Chips
0
Poker is game with money involved so it is normal everybody to try to use whatever available and within rules to win it. In fact there are two types of people who play poker. First are grinders who play only for money and second are people playing for fun as hobby. Grinders generally will do whatever needed and not explicitly forbidden to win the game and the money involved. You may not like that but it is their right to do so.

Regarding where the line between normal play and cheating is - well everybody have different definition. That's why there is manager in the casino to solve disputes and it is other player's responsibility to report cases which are suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Top